LOCKED: Disgusted with progressives, part 2...

posted by gut

Well, the accusation is much more serious than you characterize it.  Not like he should go to jail, but perhaps it would disqualify one from SCOTUS.

Saw another guy she named [not accused] - his buddy - denies it happened.  But she's the one that made him a witness.  She also said, rather specifically, there were 4 guys at the party (therapist notes said 4 were in the room, which the woman said was a recording error).

So I don't know if there's a big unsolvable mystery here.  Can someone else confirm the party happened and who was there?  

She herself doesn't know the place or date of the party....  And there will never be proof, it happened 30+ years ago. Someone else saying there was a party doesn't prove anything. Y'all need to be more skeptical.

posted by iclfan2

Y'all need to be more skeptical.

What you're saying is this woman decided "hey, I can use that therapy session from 2012 where I talked about an unnamed perp to block a SCOTUS nominee".  Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of that.

But wait there's more....then she colludes with Feinstein to pretend not to be interested in coming forward, to both give her more credibility AND to delay the process.

If a member of an investigative body withholds potential pertinent ‘evidence’ from that body, for personal / political gain, is that not some type of violation or illegality?

posted by gut

What you're saying is this woman decided "hey, I can use that therapy session from 2012 where I talked about an unnamed perp to block a SCOTUS nominee".  Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of that.

But wait there's more....then she colludes with Feinstein to pretend not to be interested in coming forward, to both give her more credibility AND to delay the process.

The democrats are using it to delay the process. They don't care about the validity of the ladies' allegations, only that they can delay it as long as possible. I have no idea why she would come up with this now, but I'm skeptical of anyone waiting 40 years to bring up an "assault". Further, I have a hard time believing anyone can remember an event from that long ago accurately. Finally, there is still and never will be proof, so this whole thing is ONLY delaying the inevitable confirmation.

Maybe it happened, sucks for her if it did, but it will never be proven and the whole charade is pointless. That's where I'm at on it. But I'm certainly not going to just believe her word over his. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

posted by Spock

This left wing ploy to derail the Kavennah vote is ridiculous.  To drag out something 35 years ago is wrong.  

If it's true, it's not only not wrong, it's the closest thing to just.
 

posted by gut

Story in WaPo has her husband and a therapist from 2012 verifying her recollection.  She provided notes from that therapy session.  She also passed a lie detector test.  I'm inclined to believe her.

This is where I am on it.  We're hardly dealing with some Machiavellian Nostradamus here.  I sincerely doubt she was plotting a character assassination of someone back in 2012 just in case there was ever a reason to use it.

And unless it's been covered up, I doubt she's had any training or practice beating a polygraph.
 

posted by CenterBHSFan

I have serious doubts for one main reason. She's not looking to press charges and allow due process to happen. That in and of itself makes me believe she's only interested in political grandstanding and that this is nothing more than a political hashtag moment #Shenanigans#MeToo#MuhParty

It isn't exactly a rarity for people to feel shame as victims of assault, even decades after, so I really can't see how her not wanting it to be the focus in a court room is adequate evidence to mistrust her story.  Conversely, the fact that the account was told back before he was a serious spot on the radar for SCOTUS makes it pretty credible.
 

posted by gut

That's where I was at, but now she's come forward and is willing to speak to Congress.  So she'll be questioned under oath.  The fact she talked about it in therapy 6 years ago makes it really tough to think it's made-up.

Exactly.  Other than it being true, it's hard to come up with a motive for it at the time.
 

posted by QuakerOats

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/kavanaughs-accuser-dirty-little-secret

 

Interesting  …..motive

Why am I not surprised you would pull a self-professed Opinion piece with loose allusions from the Federalist Papers to try to tarnish the reputation of the alleged victim?

Also, Kavanaugh's mother ended up dismissing the foreclosure in 1997 after they refinanced.

But of course, you'll try again.  Accepting that he might have done something to morally disqualify himself is just outside the scope of possibility, right?  After all, he's "conservative."  They're all good guys.
 

posted by iclfan2

She herself doesn't know the place or date of the party....  And there will never be proof, it happened 30+ years ago. Someone else saying there was a party doesn't prove anything. Y'all need to be more skeptical.

If there's a motive, I am.

I've yet to hear a plausible one for the time in question.
 

posted by iclfan2

The democrats are using it to delay the process. They don't care about the validity of the ladies' allegations, only that they can delay it as long as possible. I have no idea why she would come up with this now, but I'm skeptical of anyone waiting 40 years to bring up an "assault". Further, I have a hard time believing anyone can remember an event from that long ago accurately. Finally, there is still and never will be proof, so this whole thing is ONLY delaying the inevitable confirmation.

Maybe it happened, sucks for her if it did, but it will never be proven and the whole charade is pointless. That's where I'm at on it. But I'm certainly not going to just believe her word over his. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

I completely agree that the Louies don't actually care about her as a victim.  Their interest is purely political.  That doesn't speak to the legitimacy of her story one way or the other, though.

It's hardly an unthinkable scenario to want to put an assault behind you, but then come forward about it if you find out that the person who assaulted you is going to be placed into a position of power based, in part, on his character.  A close relative of mine was a sleazeball back when we were more involved in his life.  I have effectively just cut him out of our lives, but you can bet your ass I'd make a stink if he were a nominee for SCOTUS.  He would be morally unfit.  Doesn't mean I'm going to raise hell in the meantime, though.

Whether or not it will be proven doesn't make it pointless.  Aside from the fact that we can't know how a jury might side anyway, again, the seeming absence of motive to tell such a story back then, coupled with complete inaction to use the story toward some end at the time, makes it seem extremely unlikely that it was made up.

If it's not true, there are really only two plausible explanations I can think of: mistaken identity or collusion between her, the therapist, the person administering the polygraph, and anyone else who might need to be involved.

Sounds like some left wing professor who had her family screwed over by his mommy (judge) decided to load some ammo years in advance by making up some therapy crap that she never named any names in to use later.

So the woman didn't want to deal with the scrutiny of a court room. I can understand that, for sure. But now... now she's got that scrutiny x10. 

Ok. I can see how she would pass by a smaller scrutiny for a bigger one. Different times of life and all of that. 

Still skeptical. I can't help it. The timing is just too convenient.

posted by Spock

Sounds like some left wing professor who had her family screwed over by his mommy (judge) decided to load some ammo years in advance by making up some therapy crap that she never named any names in to use later.

Erm ... first, you're reaching for a conspiracy.  Occam would strongly disagree, and you're going from implausible to amusing.

Also, you apparently missed the part where "his mommy" is actually the one that kept her family from being screwed (by dismissing the foreclosure).
 

posted by CenterBHSFan

So the woman didn't want to deal with the scrutiny of a court room. I can understand that, for sure. But now... now she's got that scrutiny x10. 

Ok. I can see how she would pass by a smaller scrutiny for a bigger one. Different times of life and all of that. 

Still skeptical. I can't help it. The timing is just too convenient.

Well, the timing is certainly a factor.  There's no doubt about that.  As I said, it's a lot easier to let it go when the offender is just some random stranger living somewhere else in the world.

When that person becomes a candidate for a position of power, there's a little more urgency to making public something like this.

So I definitely don't disagree about the timing.  I think the timing is absolutely, 100% relevant to the release of the info.  And to be sure, the Louies are going to virtue signal until they cream all over themselves with it.  They don't give a shit about her, but it helps their cause, so they will.

I'm just saying that it doesn't make her statement itself, or even the circumstances around it, particularly suspicious.

posted by O-Trap

I'm just saying that it doesn't make her statement itself, or even the circumstances around it, particularly suspicious.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume she's a feminazi...I think her story is probably true, and being Kavanaugh is going to destroy women's rights and take away their abortions she HAD to come forward.

Now there IS a chance the story was about someone else and she's manipulated the facts to torpedo his nomination [because...feminazi].  It's just pretty unlikely, especially given she passed a lie detector (which studies show is probably about 85% reliable).

The bigger question is if things really happened as she believes/recalls....because I'm guessing this is a drunk 15 and 17 year old at a party.  Except Kavanaugh denies even being at the party.  If reality is something less than her version of events, should that disqualify him?  The problem is, she talks about him covering her mouth to stop her yelling....which is pretty black-and-white that this is much more serious than a clumsy come-on.

Not surprised at all to see some of the people on here calling the woman a liar. Lol. If this was a liberal candidate, you’d all be saying she’s telling the truth and he shouldn’t be a SCOTUS.  Admit it..

posted by gut

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume she's a feminazi...I think her story is probably true, and being Kavanaugh is going to destroy women's rights and take away their abortions she HAD to come forward.

Now there IS a chance the story was about someone else and she's manipulated the facts to torpedo his nomination [because...feminazi].  It's just pretty unlikely, especially given she passed a lie detector (which studies show is probably about 85% reliable).

The bigger question is if things really happened as she believes/recalls....because I'm guessing this is a drunk 15 and 17 year old at a party.  Except Kavanaugh denies even being at the party.  If reality is something less than her version of events, should that disqualify him?  The problem is, she talks about him covering her mouth to stop her yelling....which is pretty black-and-white that this is much more serious than a clumsy come-on.

I suppose it would have to depend on where in between their stories the truth ... or at least the most plausible description of it ... lies.  If it appears more likely that he was not there, it'd be hard to disqualify him based on this account.  If her account is not factual to the letter (as you said, this is a drunk teen's recollection), but it's still close enough, I have no problem with ousting a nominee based on something less than her account if it still involves sexual assault, even if not necessarily as described.

As an aside, I've enjoyed reading all the angsty people who are "afraid" of being accused of sexual assault because they don't know where the line is anymore.

posted by SportsAndLady

Not surprised at all to see some of the people on here calling the woman a liar. Lol. If this was a liberal candidate, you’d all be saying she’s telling the truth and he shouldn’t be a SCOTUS.  Admit it..

Just speaking for myself I don't care if he is confirmed for the SC or not. I was the same with Gorsuch. I didn't care about Kagan either and she's liberal. Sometimes it's just not about political affiliation.

As an aside, this reminds me very much of the Clarence Thomas thing.

What is the end game here? If Kavanaugh drops out or it gets delayed to after the election, do they really think they can delay a nominee for 2 years?

The only thing I know for sure if this situation was reversed is that left would be hysterical that a Senator held on to information for that long and didn’t go through the proper channels. Feinstein should be punished for deliberately holding onto this until now instead of using the confidential confirmation process, which is the whole point of it. These confirmation hearings will undoubtedly get more retarded now going forward.

posted by iclfan2

What is the end game here? If Kavanaugh drops out or it gets delayed to after the election, do they really think they can delay a nominee for 2 years?

The only thing I know for sure if this situation was reversed is that left would be hysterical that a Senator held on to information for that long and didn’t go through the proper channels. Feinstein should be punished for deliberately holding onto this until now instead of using the confidential confirmation process, which is the whole point of it. These confirmation hearings will undoubtedly get more retarded now going forward.

As far as your last sentence goes, I would have thought they'd hit bottom by now. I underestimate the power of stupid people in groups.

In the meantime, we're supposed to be swayed by one person vs 40+ people, including another guy who was there that alleged night JUST because of party affiliation. Ya'll can do that if you want to, I'd just prefer that due process happens and that this is investigated further. I don't care if it happens long after midterms. I just don't. Because at the end of the process the truth will come out whether it is in favor of Kavanaugh or not and then proceedings can go from there. That may mean somebody else entirely has to be put up. Who cares? I would rather that happen than accusations being thrown out there and decided by social media. I would hope that everybody who is in this forum would feel the same.

What angers me about all of these situations is that the accused is guilty as soon as the accusation is made....regardless of any proof.

I agree....hold the vote until both testify.  However, there needs to be some solid proof that what is being alleged actually happened.  Not her therapist's session notes of her recollection of an event that happened 30 years ago.  Without real proof, this is a 'she said - he said' and nothing more.

posted by iclfan2

She herself doesn't know the place or date of the party....  And there will never be proof, it happened 30+ years ago. Someone else saying there was a party doesn't prove anything. Y'all need to be more skeptical.

I'm skeptical of lots of things. Such as how the Rs could come up with a list of 65 women vouching for the dude's character within one day of the allegations coming public unless they knew he had skeletons in his closet and wanted to have damage control accomplished in advance so they could immediately combat said allegations.

Let Congress grill the two of them on it.  If she's credible, then Trump should pull his nomination and have a new nomination that same day.  Accelerate the process because Feinstein sat on the info in order to delay it.

If additional evidence comes out, Kavanaugh could be impeached and removed for lying.  Isn't that correct?

posted by CenterBHSFan

So the woman didn't want to deal with the scrutiny of a court room. I can understand that, for sure. But now... now she's got that scrutiny x10. 

Ok. I can see how she would pass by a smaller scrutiny for a bigger one. Different times of life and all of that. 

Still skeptical. I can't help it. The timing is just too convenient.

Indeed; it is all that was needed to keep the release of declassified documents revealing the massive corruption and conspiracy at the FBI and DoJ to thwart an election off the front pages (as if the liberal media would even consider exposing such historic criminality).

posted by CenterBHSFan

As an aside, this reminds me very much of the Clarence Thomas thing.

Except that was more clumsy flirting, back when that sort of thing was common and not yet considered sexual harassment in the workplace.  Doesn't make it right, but I'm not sure that should disqualify him.

And it was also 27 years ago.  Safe bet if we're considering Clarence Thomas today and Anita Hill makes that accusation - even if it's from 30 years ago - he's sunk.